Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2014,01:34) | Joe G. at Hunter's blog:
| Quote |
Joe GDecember 3, 2012 at 4:30 AM
Well Dr Hunter, given eons of time for illions of trial and error tests, birds are an inevitable outcome, just as long as they don't also have gills. That would wreck their alleged objective nested hierarchy (which their position doesn't expect anyway).
|
Wikipedia:
| Quote |
The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.
|
What Joe's "search heuristic" objection boils down to is that evolutionary computation is deployed by humans to a purpose, and biological evolution is not, which is banal enough, but not anything that would bar noting the points of correspondence in operation between the computational and biological systems. Those correspondences continue to exist, though Joe finds them inconvenient. And I'm OK with that. |
Wes, you are just fucked-up. Please deal with the fact that you just don't understand what natural selection is:
Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.
From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
| Quote | | What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination. |
Page 118:
| Quote | Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category} |
With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.
page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force
| Quote | | What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population |
On the role of chance:
| Quote | | The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction. |
It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
